Naked Lunch is a film that many consider to be
incomprehensible, the kind of film that some will watch and inevitably reach a
point where they’ll think “what the hell is going on here?” I can understand
anyone who ends up feeling this way while watching Naked Lunch because it
certainly has various levels of bizarreness going for it, but in my opinion the
film is not the unintelligible mess that some make it out to be. Personally I
think you can watch Naked Lunch as a comment on drug addiction and nothing more
and you’ll be fine, but you’d understand the movie on a whole other level if
you go in knowing and understanding the films background, where it’s coming
from and how it came to be. So with this review my dear readers I offer you a
small glimpse of the tale that comes before the movie, so it’ll help you
understand it just a little better. But going into Naked Lunch what you must
first keep in mind is that it’s a film about writers and writing. It’s a film
that explores that whole world of literary guys and gals who live, breath and
die for writing. As one of the characters says in the film: "It's a literary high, a Kafka high"

Naked Lunch the film, is based on William S. Burroughs novel
of the same name. Now Naked Lunch isn’t any old novel, it was written by
Burroughs in 1959 and it is based on Burroughs own experiences with various
forms of drug addiction. Upon it’s first release the book was considered
highly controversial, it was banned in many states and countries because it was
considered too vulgar. Burroughs was a
Junkie in the worst sense of the word. He was not only addicted to Heroin, he
also dabbled in all sorts of drugs. He got into all sorts of legal troubles throughout
his life because of his drug addiction, he even did some jail time. In a way, I’d
compare him with Hunter S. Thompson; both of their writings where based on
their own personal experiences with drugs. It’s like they went into this crazy
drug addled trip and then came back and reported everything they saw in their
hallucinatory states. This is why in the film; the main character takes a drug
that takes him to an “alternate universe” called ‘Interzone’. Being “in the
zone” is a term often times used to refer to being under the influence, so in
the film, whenever the main character says he’s in Interzone, he’s in a drug
trip. In the same way that Dorothy visited the magical Land of Oz when she got
hit in the head, William Lee, the films main character visits Interzone when he
takes the drug called ‘Black Meat’. So you have to pay attention to the moments
when we are in Interzone, and the moments when we are in the real world.

I saw Interzone as Burroughs own literary fantasy land,
where everyone is a writer, everyone has their own living typewriters; that’s
right, on Interzone typewriters are alive (actually they resemble giant
insects!) and they also speak. The typewriters in Interzone are sexually excited when they like what
you type into them. Of course, this is a metaphor for a writers own desire to
write things that are worth a damn. In Interzone, if your writing is good,
maybe your typewriter will have an orgasm. The theme of writing and the things
that writers care about permeates the whole film. In this film characters talk about things like the validity of stream of
consciousness writing vs. a more coherent form of writing. They talk about
writing what comes out of your brain, vs. constant rewriting and so forth. So
if you’re not into writing, then don’t bother with this film! If on the other
hand you like to explore the nature of writing, and the crazy world of writers,
then indulge, this movie was made for you.

Now something that we need to keep in mind when watching Naked
Lunch is that it’s more of a Cronenberg film then an actual adaptation of
William Burrough’s novel, so don’t expect a literal translation of the book.
Cronenberg himself has gone down as saying that this film functions more as an
amalgamation of many of Burroughs novels, including Junkie, which is also one
of his most famous ones. Cronenberg explains that Naked Lunch the film, captures
a lot of who Burrough’s was as a human being, it tries to capture the kind of life
he lived, which is probably why the film dives deep into the life of a man who
struggles with his own homosexual desires. Other similarities with Burroughs
life include, same as the main character in the film, working as an
exterminator, being addicted to various drugs and accidentally killing his wife,
an event that marked Burrough’s life and writing till the end of his days. In
fact, he said on one occasion that it was her death that pushed him to become an
accomplished writer. So do not expect an exact literal translation of the book,
rather, expect a mix up of events and elements from Burroughs life, elements
from various Burroughs novels and Cronenberg’s own visual perks as a director
and storyteller, for example, the insect typewriters are all Cronenberg, who
admits to having something of an obsession with insects, what can you expect from the guy who directed The Fly (1986)? In my opinion, this melding of two genius
minds makes for an extremely interesting and unique film, one that you won’t
soon forget.

Naked Lunch cost something from 16 to 18 million dollars,
but only made about 2.6 in theaters, something to be expected from a film that’s
so offbeat. I sometimes wonder how David Cronenberg continues to make movies! Sure
he has a hit every now and then, like The Fly (1986) and A History of Violence
(2005), but a lot of his films don’t make their budget back or don’t make
enough to be considered a success, so how does he do it? He makes flops yet always
finds someone to finance his next one. Take for example Cosmopolis (2012), a
film that cost 20 million to make yet only made 6! It flopped because it was so
dense, so stale, 90% of the film takes place inside of a limo! I’m not saying I
didn’t like Cosmopolis (I actually enjoyed the themes) but I will say that it’s
not an easy film to see on one sitting because everything happens inside of a
car and there comes a point where you can’t avoid thinking it’s monotonous; a
fact that ensured its failure even though it starred current ‘it’ boy Robert
Pattinson. And yet there’s Cronenberg, slated to direct yet another film called
Maps to the Stars (2014). But who cares if they make money or not as long as he
keeps making his movies. I’ve always admired Cronenberg as a director, in my
opinion, he has never sold out. He refuses to make stupid cinema, and for that
I respect the guy immensely. Cronenberg caters to those that like brainy films,
films with meat to them, this of course does not sit well with the masses who
love only explosions and special effects. Cronenberg aims to feed your mind,
his films always have a philosophical angle to them, which is what attracts me
to them.

Cronenberg (right) next to Burroughs

Naked Lunch is a film that speaks in symbolisms, so
when you see something terribly strange like a person who kills bugs with his
breath, well, you just gotta ask yourself what the filmmakers are trying to say
with these visuals. Same goes for all the bizarre things you’ll see in this
movie which range from giant half caterpillar, half human creatures, to alien
like beings known as ‘Mugwumps’. But when we look at it from a Cronenberg
perspective, and the kind of films that Cronenberg makes, all this weirdness
fits in perfectly, after all, we’re talking here about the guy who made films
like Videodrome (1983) and eXistenZ (1999)! Bottom line with this movie is that
you must strap yourself tight for one bizarre trip. It’s not a film for
everyone. This is a film for those who have a resistance to the bizarre, the
dark, the depressive, if you can take a trip to the dark side of the moon, then
go for it. Otherwise you’ll just be weirded out.

13 comments:

Cronenberg is one of those directors that pushes so many boundaries that his movies become something else. He reinvented the horror movie with Fly and it sounds like he did it again with this film. A good summary Fransisco.

Well, Naked Lunch isn't a horror movie at all Maurice, though it does get dark and philosophical. I consider it one of Cronenberg's best without a doubt, recommend it if you like your movies dream-like, and surreal. Trippy would be another good term to describe this one.

When they first met to discuss the movie (circa 1989) its interesting that Cronenberg emphasized to Burroughs that he (Cronenberg) was not a faggot and that he would be focusing much more on Burroughs heterosexual activity that his pansy queer nonsense. Burroughs duly agreed that this approach would make a much better movie as well because he admitted that he was always ashamed of his faggotry and that he wished he could`ve been exclusively heterosexual all his life rather than a half-woofter.

I don't know otis, the movie actually focuses a lot on the homosexual angle of things, many of the characters are gay, even William Lee sleeps with Kiki, one of the Interzone boys...Julian Sands plays a gay guy, who ends up with Kiki as well.

I did notice that the character of William Lee is having a hard time accepting his homosexuality, he is constantly questioning himself why he has this sexual urges.n In one seen he says:

"Queer. A curse. Been in our family for generations. The Lees have always been perverts. I shall never forget the unspeakable horror that froze the lymph in my glands when the baneful word seared my reeling brain - I was a homosexual. I thought of the painted simpering female impersonators I'd seen in a Baltimore nightclub. Could it be possible I was one of those subhuman things? I walked the streets in a daze like a man with a light concussion. I would've destroyed myself. And a wise old queen - Bobo, we called her - taught me that I had a duty to live and bear my burden proudly for all to see"

Also, I'd appreciate not using derogatory terms on your comments otis, thanks, if you do I'll delete your comments. Thanks.

Sorry Francisco, its just that in interviews about the film Cronenberg has admitted to being homo-phobic towards the gay subject matter and that Burroughs was accepting and understanding of his homo-phobia and still thought Cronenberg was the best person to make the film.

That's cool man I just want to keep things respectful, you know it's all about coexistence and understanding each other, I always say it's not what you say but how you say it, thanks for understanding Otis!

As Cronenberg said in an interview, doing a faithful adaptation of this book would be impossible as it would be banned in every country. So, he wisely fused elements of Burroughs' life with the book and with other novels - JUNKY and EXTERMINATOR.

I'd also rank it right up there with BARTON FINK as one of THE best films about writing and writers. Fascinating stuff.

Thanks for mentioning Barton Fink J.D., I forgot to compare it with Naked Lunch on the review, and I fully agree both are great movies about writing. I will be reviewing Barton Fink for the 90's Blog-A-Thon!

I love it how both of these movies kind of dive into surreal, nightmarish imagery, representative of the writing process which isn't necesarilly an easy one. Writing can be fun, but it also has it's dark side, just ask any writer!

I first saw this when I was 13, and unsurprisingly, it made zero sense. (imagine the moment in The Simpsons when Bart and his friends sneak in to see it; "I can think of at least two things wrong with that title"). But after picking up the special edition DVD a few years back, it all made sense. In fairness, I had since read many of Burroughs works, and knew enough about the mans life to see this a mixing of biography and fiction. Anyways, a brilliant film, possibly far ahead of its time.

JP Mulvanetti: Yeah, it's the kind of movie that is better appreciated when you know a little bit about where its coming from, totally agree with you. The first time I saw it, I knew nothing about it, so of course it was all mess to me, now that I know all about it, it all clicks.